|
Anyone come across this before?
While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a
clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? TIA Lyn |
Anyone come across this before?
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:14:47 +0100, "Lyn" wrote:
While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? Blimey! Never heard of that one before! If it's a new trend then I strongly urge all gardeners everywhere to boycott such plants - and send the breeders a very firm and clear message that they can stuff their marketeering up their warm, damp spot. Incidentally, my wife informs me that it's illegal to propagate with me....but I'm open to a spot of discreet piracy. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Anyone come across this before?
Propagation for sale is sometimes illegal. Those who produce new plants can
register them as a form of copyright. They can then sanction propagation for a commission fee. Since this measure was introduced very many more new varieties have been produced as there is now some financial incentive. Previously one could have spent years working to improve a species and then having sold just one, others could propagate it, and make their own fortunes. A similarity to writing a book etc. Best Wishes. "Lyn" wrote in message news:y1Wjc.654$7S2.422@newsfe1-win... While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? TIA Lyn |
Anyone come across this before?
Stephen Howard28/4/04 11:27
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:14:47 +0100, "Lyn" wrote: While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? Blimey! Never heard of that one before! If it's a new trend then I strongly urge all gardeners everywhere to boycott such plants - and send the breeders a very firm and clear message that they can stuff their marketeering up their warm, damp spot. You're talking about Plant Breeder's Rights which is just the same as a Patent. The breeder of the plant has to breed or discover it, propagate enough of it to go for testing as to viability and reliability and pay to have it registered. That registration costs around £1,000 or more. This is *exactly* the same as someone taking out a patent on a gadget which you cannot reproduce and sell as your own invention. I know the inventor of the Black & Decker Workmate and some years ago he told me that never a day goes by that he isn't defending its patent in some country somewhere in the world. My husband has PBR on some plants and they are an important source of income to the Nursery. However, while the label may have made that perfectly correct statement, plant breeders and their agents aren't interested in the amateur gardener taking one or two cuttings and handing them around, though I'm not sure why anyone wants two of the same Clematis in their garden - each to their own, however. In reality, It's not worth their while policing your garden! They're interested in commercial growers taking hundreds or thousands of illegal cuttings and avoiding payment of a percentage to the breeder and the agent. We've had to take action against someone doing just that in another country, hoping they wouldn't be spotted. I wouldn't worry about your own small number of cuttings but equally, please do not dismiss people who spend a lot of time, money and effort in breeding the plants you like to buy as greedy. And as a piece of information as a side dish, many of the plants you buy with the brightly coloured picture labels in their pots will have PBR attached to them e.g. Surfinias which, according to my husband *all* have PBR. All those lovely David Austin 'own brand' roses are the same. This is nothing new and applies to very many plants. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:54:32 +0100, Sacha
wrote: You're talking about Plant Breeder's Rights which is just the same as a Patent. The breeder of the plant has to breed or discover it, propagate enough of it to go for testing as to viability and reliability and pay to have it registered. snip In reality, It's not worth their while policing your garden! They're interested in commercial growers taking hundreds or thousands of illegal cuttings and avoiding payment of a percentage to the breeder and the agent. We've had to take action against someone doing just that in another country, hoping they wouldn't be spotted. I wouldn't worry about your own small number of cuttings but equally, please do not dismiss people who spend a lot of time, money and effort in breeding the plants you like to buy as greedy. And as a piece of information as a side dish, many of the plants you buy with the brightly coloured picture labels in their pots will have PBR attached to them e.g. Surfinias which, according to my husband *all* have PBR. All those lovely David Austin 'own brand' roses are the same. This is nothing new and applies to very many plants. Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding. Many thanks for the informative perspective. Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new variety?? Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Anyone come across this before?
"Lyn" wrote in message news:y1Wjc.654$7S2.422@newsfe1-win... : While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a : clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters : "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I : get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being : broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning : stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or : a new trend? : : TIA : : Lyn : : No it's been around for a while. It's for new introductions so that the nursery that has invested so much in 'breeding' the plant can recoup their money and get some benefit out of it. A bit like people saying you can't download music from the internet really lol |
Anyone come across this before?
"Stephen Howard" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:14:47 +0100, "Lyn" wrote: While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? All the labels at our local centres say "Propagation illegal without a licence" |
Anyone come across this before?
In article , "Sue da Nimm" . writes: | "Stephen Howard" wrote in message | ... | On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:14:47 +0100, "Lyn" wrote: | | While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a | clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters | "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure | I | get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being | broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning | stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening | or | a new trend? | | All the labels at our local centres say "Propagation illegal without a | licence" There is, in general, no law against false advertising in the UK, let alone false claims of illegality. It may be a new trend with plants, but is not in the software business. You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And while we maintain our independence - and I mean from the USA, not the EU. I assume that the label is applied to all plants, with and without such rights. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Anyone come across this before?
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1
@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk: You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And we hope not. I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. Anyone for copyleft plants? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses...WhatIsCopyleft) Victoria -- gardening on a north-facing hill in South-East Cornwall -- |
Anyone come across this before?
Stephen Howard29/4/04 1:22
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:54:32 +0100, Sacha wrote: You're talking about Plant Breeder's Rights which is just the same as a Patent. The breeder of the plant has to breed or discover it, propagate enough of it to go for testing as to viability and reliability and pay to have it registered. snip In reality, It's not worth their while policing your garden! They're interested in commercial growers taking hundreds or thousands of illegal cuttings and avoiding payment of a percentage to the breeder and the agent. We've had to take action against someone doing just that in another country, hoping they wouldn't be spotted. I wouldn't worry about your own small number of cuttings but equally, please do not dismiss people who spend a lot of time, money and effort in breeding the plants you like to buy as greedy. And as a piece of information as a side dish, many of the plants you buy with the brightly coloured picture labels in their pots will have PBR attached to them e.g. Surfinias which, according to my husband *all* have PBR. All those lovely David Austin 'own brand' roses are the same. This is nothing new and applies to very many plants. Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding. Many thanks for the informative perspective. Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new variety?? Regards, Good question. I'll ask the boss! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
Nick Maclaren29/4/04 8:39
snip You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And while we maintain our independence - and I mean from the USA, not the EU. snip I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly, Nick. But if you're saying that PBR doesn't apply to plants bred in UK and then licensed for propagation and retailing in e.g. USA, that would be wrong. One of Ray's plants has PBR in USA, Canada, Japan and all of Europe. Its biggest market has proved to be USA with Canada and Japan close behind. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
"Lyn" wrote in message news:y1Wjc.654$7S2.422@newsfe1-win... While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? If I were you,I would pay no attention to that notice. It is intended for the consumption of commercial propagators. Half the pleasure of gardening is in trying ones hand at propagating plants. I can understand why a newly developed plant should be protected from commercial exploitation, but there is no harm in propagating ones own specimen of such a plant for ones own pleasure. I have frequently taken cuttings of roses, for my own use, which I am sure were still under copyright (or whatever) protection, and I have no qualms about it. Franz |
Anyone come across this before?
Lyn wrote:
While wandering round a local garden centre today I stopped to admire a clematis, and on reading the label was surprised to see in bold letters "propogation of this plant is illegal". Now since a lot of the pleasure I get from gardening is from growing my own stock from one plant (and being broke it is often the only way I can increase my plants), this warning stopped me from buying, but I'm moved to ask if this is a rare happening or a new trend? If someone has originated a new variety, they don't want it being pirated by other vendors. The variety is registered to the original breeder and they have exclusive rights to it. The intention is to prevent commerical piracy, and I can't imagine anyone who, in 5 years time, gives a cutting to a neighbour being persued with all the rigour of the law. But even that is similar to copying a DVD and handing it over the fence, I suppose. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pvs/pbrguide.htm Stick to native wildflowers, and you won't go wrong. |
Anyone come across this before?
|
Anyone come across this before?
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message . 240.10... (Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1 @pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk: snip I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago). Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen, e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office, parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform. Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting plants. Interestingly, many of these objectors were farmers who would not have taken kindly to the idea that they should do the same with their produce. But then, that folk for you... some just never think! Plants, being as natural as water, they would argue, should be provided for less than 1p each, or better still, free of charge, where free of charge means just that and not free at point of sale with monies later withdrawn from the public purse. That such attitudes are still around today perhaps explains why an excellent gardener can still only expect a pay rate which is a mere fraction of that which is automatically awarded to say, a thoroughly incompetent solicitor, accountant, journalist etc, any of which often cause even worse unpleantantness and an even bigger stink than say an incompetent janitor. Patrick |
Anyone come across this before?
Victoria Clare29/4/04 9:51
10 (Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1 @pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk: You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And we hope not. I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. A living thing is as much a commodity as anything else. Race horse owners shouldn't be paid if their mare produces a promising foal or their stallion covers a good brood mare? The semen straws cattle breeders send abroad should be free? In the case of plants, the grower and or breeder has had to spend hours working on it, has to bulk up and get together enough samples for testing, has to send the plant to various labs for that testing and perhaps comparison against other, similar plants, has to spend time and money on compost, pots, heating, lighting and then, finally, has to spend quite a lot of money licensing that plant as 'his product'. Without the people who do that sort of thing you would be growing only species plants or plants that had hybridised naturally in the wild. Many of the plants we all have now in our gardens have been bred by someone deliberately and some have been worth patenting, others haven't, so pass into the public domain freely. But just think of all the great rose nurseries there have been and imagine rose gardens without them. And that's just one plant. And I am prepared to bet that if you bred a plant that could bring you in a reasonable income each year, helping to make up for the otherwise small revenue of most nurserymen, you wouldn't sniff at it! ;-) snip I agree with what Patrick has said in his post. Coming fairly new to this life, it seems to me that some people think that a nurseryman is merely enjoying a larger extension of what, to them, is a hobby. But the average gardener is not spending money on staff wages, insurance, thousands of pounds on compost and water rates; working in rain and freezing cold in glasshouses or outdoors with a short half hour for lunch and then having people moan if a plant is raised by 50p from one year to the next when they're already reasonably priced! We have mercifully few customers who do this but the ones that do I could cheerfully strangle. I see my husband and my stepson working almost from dawn to dusk some days and then some idiot groans because a plant has been potted on so has to be more expensive. Why? Because that involves new pot, new compost, more labour. Why wouldn't a plant breeder be allowed to make money out of his work? I'm sure you do. Or don't you think you own your own living things - your brain, your hands? Would you allow someone else use of them or your expertise and training without payment? Phew! Sorry about that! ;-) -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
"tuin man" wrote in
: "Victoria Clare" wrote in message . 240.10... I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago). Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen, e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office, parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform. Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting plants. Um, I think you are putting words into my newsreader. I have no objection to people being paid (and paid well) for their work and enterprise, and I'm very pleased that (for example) Hill House are able to make a living through it. Well done them. I'm certainly not suggesting they should stand alone and defy the trend to register their plants - that would be mad: they'd just be mown down by others less scrupulous. I'm just not convinced that applying patents to something as complex as a living plant (or animal) should be exactly the same as applying a patent to a new mouse-trap. You need a lot more information to make a petunia than you do to make a mousetrap. Is this the only possible way to compensate people for their work? There have to be other ways of dealing with unique information and the creating of new things. You have to admit plant registration does restrict the spread of new varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but there is no UK /european supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail. The copyleft scheme I mentioned is a system for voluntarily making some information (sort of) free, in the belief that information that is free leads to new ideas and discoveries as more people use it. Victoria -- gardening on a north-facing hill in South-East Cornwall -- |
Anyone come across this before?
In article , Sacha writes: | | A living thing is as much a commodity as anything else. Race horse owners | shouldn't be paid if their mare produces a promising foal or their stallion | covers a good brood mare? The semen straws cattle breeders send abroad | should be free? Let us say that I am a pigopoloist, and turn up demanding royalties from you for every rose you sell, because I have retrospectively patented the genus Rosa. That isn't far off what has been going on, and what the extortionists want more of. I wish that I were joking :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Anyone come across this before?
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:
I am referring to the disgraceful way in which USA pigopolists have been permitted to patent naturally occurring organisms, Delurking briefly.... amen brother! I'm a member of the Seed Saver's Exchange, whose mission is to preserve all those tried but true varieties the big money folks would like us to abandon in favor of their patented GM hybrids! At the moment, big money rules even more than usual here.... I'm hoping for a change come election time. (And no, this isn't the proper forum for politics, especially U.S., so let's not veer that way!) Clearly Big Business would like to have control of all of the food supply, third world or not. At least the Common Market has mostly been rejecting our FrankenFood. But there's a lot of money involved.... Peace from the (former) American colonies, Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G |
Anyone come across this before?
|
Anyone come across this before?
Nick Maclaren29/4/04 2:59
In article , Sacha writes: | | A living thing is as much a commodity as anything else. Race horse owners | shouldn't be paid if their mare produces a promising foal or their stallion | covers a good brood mare? The semen straws cattle breeders send abroad | should be free? Let us say that I am a pigopoloist, and turn up demanding royalties from you for every rose you sell, because I have retrospectively patented the genus Rosa. That isn't far off what has been going on, and what the extortionists want more of. I wish that I were joking :-( I understand what you're getting at now and do remember reading something about it a while ago. Now that truly IS disgraceful, I agree. Patenting yew trees so as to cream off Tamoxifen (?) profits would be a horrible example. I'm not at all clear as to why this is being allowed, though. -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
Victoria Clare29/4/04 3:10
3 Sacha wrote in news:BCB6C1E8.1A522% : Would you allow someone else use of them or your expertise and training without payment? Actually, yes, I do, often. Not to the point of destitution, but to the point of helping someone out. So do you, I've noticed ;-). Yes but that does remain within the realms of *our choice*. I don't think the racehorse argument stacks up: you can't copy a racehorse, you can only charge stud fees (I think that's more like selling seed). Well, we talk about 'mother plants' when we talk about breeding and propagating plants under PBR and in that sense, there's little difference. The breeder of the plant/horse either finds a lucky sport/foal or carefully crossbreeds two plants/horses to get the desired result. I didn't mean to say that Hill House should not register its plants, and certainly not to imply that running a nursery was free or even cheap! I said that patenting a living thing is a different matter to patenting a gadget. I think that there we shall have to disagree. I still think that. As cloning becomes more widespread and more and more information of every type moves into the private domain, I think we are going to see this sort of debate more often! I'm sure. Nick has raised a very interesting point, for example. But cloning animals or plants is not the same as setting out to breed (by X-ing) new varieties. -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
"Sue da Nimm" . wrote in message ... snip All the labels at our local centres say "Propagation illegal without a licence" [Someone has to say it - and we have already seen one variant] When I was a lad my girlfriend's mother used to attach the self same label to her every Saturday night :-) |
Anyone come across this before?
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message after... Sacha wrote Would you allow someone else use of them or your expertise and training without payment? Actually, yes, I do, often. Not to the point of destitution, but to the point of helping someone out. So do you, I've noticed ;-). I don't think the racehorse argument stacks up: you can't copy a racehorse, you can only charge stud fees (I think that's more like selling seed). I didn't mean to say that Hill House should not register its plants, and certainly not to imply that running a nursery was free or even cheap! I said that patenting a living thing is a different matter to patenting a gadget. I still think that. I have bred for my own interest/fun various plants, Irises for example, and understand how long it can take to even get some to flowering (when you often chuck them away) , if one was to try to do it commercially why can't the person that has spent so much time, effort and money have some protection from the pirate that simply buys a few plants and micropropagates millions. If it's allowed to continue then there won't be the incentive or money to continue to breed new plants. It's just like the music and video pirates, it's plain theft. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars |
Anyone come across this before?
|
Anyone come across this before?
Let us say that I am a pigopoloist, and turn up demanding royalties
from you for every rose you sell, because I have retrospectively patented the genus Rosa. That isn't far off what has been going on, and what the extortionists want more of. Our statute reads: "Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a plant patent therefore" Few plants are worthy enough to make the investments necessary to obtain, market and protect the patented material. Cheers from sunny New England, Mark |
Anyone come across this before?
In article ,
IntarsiaCo wrote: Let us say that I am a pigopoloist, and turn up demanding royalties from you for every rose you sell, because I have retrospectively patented the genus Rosa. That isn't far off what has been going on, and what the extortionists want more of. Our statute reads: "Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a plant patent therefore" Few plants are worthy enough to make the investments necessary to obtain, market and protect the patented material. Cheers from sunny New England, I am jealous :-( But, to answer your question: jojoba and neem. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Anyone come across this before?
".............. You have to admit plant registration does restrict the
spread of new varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but there is no UK /European supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail. ............" Sorry Victoria but I can't agree. There's no way that having Plant Breeders Rights(PBR) on a plant are going to hinder it's sales overseas, in fact it can work the other way, If I knew that if I could import a plant from say Australia and thanks to PBR I would be the only one licensed to grow it in the UK I would be much more interested than going to all the expense of importing it and just hoping that there wont be another 100 growers offering it within a year from the plants they had bought in the first year. The fact that a nursery finds it to expensive to go through all the rigmarole of phyto sanitary certificates etc to export one or two plants is not really surprising David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
Anyone come across this before?
I think this statement needs clarifying
"........ "Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a plant patent therefore ..........." This refers to plants propagated by producing a lot of individual tubers, such as Potatoes and not to plants that can be propagated from cuttings and then produce a tuber such as Dahlias. Don't be confused by Canna Lilies, apart from not being Lilies also don't produce a "Tuber" despite this description being used for their fleshy root structure, more correctly it is a rhizome. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
Anyone come across this before?
But, to answer your question: jojoba and neem.
Hi Nick: Jojoba and neem could not be legally patented here. I believe that you are referring to the attempt by certain European business entities to patent the active ingredients found within. These patents were declared null after an intervention by the government of India some time ago. Best regards, Mark |
Anyone come across this before?
Those who produce new plants can
register them as a form of copyright. Copyrights, trademarks and patents are different. One can put a trademark or service mark(a name, symbol, or similar device) on a plant that is not patented. Copyrights do not extend to underlying ideas but only to the specific manner in which an idea is expressed for original works of authorship. |
Anyone come across this before?
"Sacha" wrote (in reply to Stephen Howard who said) Mind you... what
happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new variety?? Regards, Good question. I'll ask the boss! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon Sacha, I'm no lawyer, but I would argue that, if you breed from such a plant, you're producing a NEW cultivar and you're not propagating (i.e. cloning, true to type) the one parent that has PBR. The new plant, even if it's any good (and IME most of them are not), would not be the one being sold by the producer who has the PBR. It would probably differ markedly from the parent(s) and you wouldn't, therefore, be affecting his/her livelihood or future profits. I'm not aware of PBR being applied in the same way as livestock breeding - if it were to be, there would be armies of inspectors, having to check on chance seedlings in everyones' gardens. - Tom. |
Anyone come across this before?
Tom Bennett30/4/04 1:00
e snip I'm no lawyer, but I would argue that, if you breed from such a plant, you're producing a NEW cultivar and you're not propagating (i.e. cloning, true to type) the one parent that has PBR. The new plant, even if it's any good (and IME most of them are not), would not be the one being sold by the producer who has the PBR. It would probably differ markedly from the parent(s) and you wouldn't, therefore, be affecting his/her livelihood or future profits. I'm not aware of PBR being applied in the same way as livestock breeding - if it were to be, there would be armies of inspectors, having to check on chance seedlings in everyones' gardens. I asked Ray about this and he said that if someone used e.g. his Nemesia and crossed it with another plant to produce a new strain they *should*, strictly speaking, pay him a tiny percentage. He says this would be difficult to enforce, prove and 'patrol' in his opinion. However, as far as I know, when someone wants to register a new plant for PBR they have to give its origins, if known, so parentage would come into that, I suppose. Sometimes things are just discovered as sports, sometimes they're bred deliberately. -- Sacha (remove the weeds to email me) |
Anyone come across this before?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:51:29 +0100, Victoria Clare
wrote: (Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1 : You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And we hope not. I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. Anyone for copyleft plants? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses...WhatIsCopyleft) Patenting and copyrighting everything from seeds to trashcan (dustbin) icons has obviously gotten out of hand. However, when a living thing or invention or process has been deliberately developed at considerable (or any) cost, and is sold or traded with at least part of its value coming from a unique characteristic, it seems only reasonable to pay for it. This policy in no way prevents anyone from giving away the results of their personal efforts if they want to. But if my *work* is plant-breeding or butterfly cultivation, and someone tells me my 'product' should be free to everyone because they're "living things," I'd tell 'em to go boil their heads! |
Anyone come across this before?
Frogleg wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:51:29 +0100, Victoria Clare wrote: (Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:c6qbg3$ek6$1 : You may ignore all such crap, until and unless the monopolists get the IP laws extended to covering such things. At MOST, you are forbidden to propagate plants FOR SALE, and that applies only to plants with Plant Breeder's Rights. And we hope not. I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. Anyone for copyleft plants? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses...WhatIsCopyleft) Patenting and copyrighting everything from seeds to trashcan (dustbin) icons has obviously gotten out of hand. However, when a living thing or invention or process has been deliberately developed at considerable (or any) cost, and is sold or traded with at least part of its value coming from a unique characteristic, it seems only reasonable to pay for it. This policy in no way prevents anyone from giving away the results of their personal efforts if they want to. But if my *work* is plant-breeding or butterfly cultivation, and someone tells me my 'product' should be free to everyone because they're "living things," I'd tell 'em to go boil their heads! And, on the other hand (or maybe it's on this hand all the time), my blood boils when Western chemical companies go out and try to patent or pbr or whatever plants which local people have been using with wisdom for centuries. This is the kind of thing which underlies the more fraudulent aspects of the "Green Revolution", and GMO, and the EU's prohibition on the sale of seed varieties our ancestors developed and preserved because they knew what they were doing. It isn't a "level playing-field": _you_ develop a really big-time valuable new crop variety, or a really big-timegood new computer application, and see what happens to you when you go to market. Mike. |
Anyone come across this before?
"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
. 240.10... I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago). Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen, e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office, parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform. Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting plants. Um, I think you are putting words into my newsreader. I would see it as more like providing a translation into the language of practical effect. I have no objection to people being paid (and paid well) for their work and enterprise, and I'm very pleased that (for example) Hill House are able to make a living through it. Well done them. I'm certainly not suggesting they should stand alone and defy the trend to register their plants - that would be mad: they'd just be mown down by others less scrupulous. I'm just not convinced that applying patents to something as complex as a living plant (or animal) should be exactly the same as applying a patent to a new mouse-trap. You need a lot more information to make a petunia than you do to make a mousetrap. Is this the only possible way to compensate people for their work? No. You may be aware that it seems in the case of men, (alledgedly) title/position/status forms of reward are often accepted as equal to money.... albeit that they don't pay the bills. However, At present money rules and it's ruling effect has gotton stronger off late.By way of example, several years ago I had to change address 5 times in 12 months andeach time I ran into the same problem. I would reply to an advert. The phone call would go something like this;Me; I'm calling about the room/bedsit/flat, is it still available?Ad person: Yeah, Look, sorry to be so fast but I have to ask you a few questions Ok!May I ask waht you do for a living?Me: I'm a gardener (technically more landscape gardening but leave it out because too many don't understand the "landscape" bit, then when I explain they say, "oh you mean you're a gardener")Ad person: "What was that" (shouts to someone else where s/he is)Oh sorry mate it's gone.Then I see the same add run for 2 more weeks and I give it another go. Another person answers. Not the one mentioned in the add. The accomodation is still available, s/he can't figure out why, (duh)but I have to speak to alan/paul.sophi about it and s/he's not in.But at least it was not as bad as those times when I've answered the job question and all I got was an inaudible grunt as the Ad person slammed the phone down.Amazingly not one estate/letting agency could seem to be able to help me out.A mini property barron who neighbours a customer of mine was mor.. hmm.. informative. He couldn't possibly let me any of his properties because his rent increases could not possibly be matched on a gardeners income and so soon down the road there would be all the hassles of eviction. (but there was also a mention of something akin to lowering the tone of his properties with riff raff.)Hell, I even once got really bored with being very alone so I answered an add from a dating agency. I asked how much it was. They replied with the job question and when I answered that one they (she) very politelyrejected my interest and suggested something more down market might be more appropriate.Luckily I don't need such agencies, but interestingly because of a foreigner living elsewhere and therefore not polluted by the rat race.Compensating people for their work should start long before the money speaks. But that's sheer fantasy nowadays There have to be other ways of dealing with unique information and the creating of new things. I agree with that sentiment. You have to admit plant registration does restrict the spread of new varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but there is no UK /european supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail. The copyleft scheme I mentioned is a system for voluntarily making some information (sort of) free, in the belief that information that is free leads to new ideas and discoveries as more people use it. Such belief's though excemplary, usually get swept out and exploited by oppurtunists. Patrick |
Anyone come across this before?
Woops, this has come up typoed decidedly odd. I'm very sorry about that. No
clue how it happened, so I merely correct the typos, "tuin man" wrote in message ... "Victoria Clare" wrote in message . 240.10... I believe that patenting a living thing is not, and should not be, the same as patenting a simple gadget. I once worked in a garden centre (nearly 25 years ago). Many of our plants were sold at 1p each when sold by the dozen, e.g.hedging. It was a large GC, with a drive through, sheds, office, parking and off course ourselves there to serve and inform. Yet.... somehow... many customers resented paying anything at all for plants and did so on similar grounds to your objections to patenting plants. Um, I think you are putting words into my newsreader. I would see it as more like providing a translation into the language of practical effect. I have no objection to people being paid (and paid well) for their work and enterprise, and I'm very pleased that (for example) Hill House are able to make a living through it. Well done them. I'm certainly not suggesting they should stand alone and defy the trend to register their plants - that would be mad: they'd just be mown down by others less scrupulous. I'm just not convinced that applying patents to something as complex as a living plant (or animal) should be exactly the same as applying a patent to a new mouse-trap. You need a lot more information to make a petunia than you do to make a mousetrap. Is this the only possible way to compensate people for their work? No. You may be aware that it seems in the case of men, (alledgedly) title/position/status forms of reward are often accepted as equal to money.... albeit that they don't pay the bills. However, At present money rules and it's ruling effect has gotton stronger off late.By way of example, several years ago I had to change address 5 times in 12 months and each time I ran into the same problem. I would reply to an advert. The phone call would go something like this; Me; I'm calling about the room/bedsit/flat, is it still available?Ad person: Yeah, Look, sorry to be so fast but I have to ask you a few questions Ok!May I ask what you do for a living?Me: I'm a gardener (technically more landscape gardening but leave it out because too many don't understand the "landscape" bit, then when I explain they say, "oh you mean you're a gardener") Ad person: "What was that" (shouts to someone else where s/he is) Oh sorry mate it's gone. Then I see the same add run for 2 more weeks and I give it another go. Another person answers. Not the one mentioned in the add. The accomodation is still available, s/he can't figure out why, (duh) but I have to speak to alan/paul.sophi about it and s/he's not in. But at least it was not as bad as those times when I've answered the job question and all I got was an incomprehensible grunt as the Ad person slammed the phone down. Amazingly not one estate/letting agency could seem to be able to help me out. A mini property barron who neighbours a customer of mine was mor.. hmm.. informative. He couldn't possibly let me any of his properties because his rent increases could not possibly be matched on a gardeners income and so soon down the road there would be all the hassles of eviction. (but there was also a mention of something akin to lowering the tone of his properties with riff raff.) Hell, I even once got really bored with being very alone so I answered an add from a dating agency. I asked how much it was. They replied with the job question and when I answered that one they (she) very politely rejected my interest and suggested something more down market might be more appropriate. Luckily I don't need such agencies, but interestingly because of a foreigner living elsewhere and therefore not polluted by the rat race. Compensating people for their work should start long before the money speaks. But that's sheer fantasy nowadays There have to be other ways of dealing with unique information and the creating of new things. I agree with that sentiment. You have to admit plant registration does restrict the spread of new varieties. A number of times I've found a plant via the Web that sounded fantastic and that I would happily spend quite a bit on, but there is no UK /european supplier, and the nursery that bred the thing is not set up to make international sales, or not interested in retail. The copyleft scheme I mentioned is a system for voluntarily making some information (sort of) free, in the belief that information that is free leads to new ideas and discoveries as more people use it. Such belief's though excemplary, usually get swept out and exploited by oppurtunists. Patrick |
Anyone come across this before?
Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw
my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding. Many thanks for the informative perspective. Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new variety?? Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk [/b][/quote] If you breed from the plant, you have a differnet selection of alleles and so it is not the same plant. The same if the plant produces a sport - pinks are prone to do this. A pbr protected pink may produce a distinct sport in one shoot - you can propagate that sport with impunity. A caveat for plants with genes inserted as a genetic modification - the gene may be patented rather than the plant and there may also be contractual issues with your supplier over and above PBR ones . |
Anyone come across this before?
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:32:09 +0200, Peltigera
wrote: Put in that context, I can see the validity of the PBR - and withdraw my comments unreservedly. I hadn't considered the possibility of unscrupulous traders cashing in through unlicensed breeding. Many thanks for the informative perspective. Mind you... what happens if you breed from such a plant ( as opposed to merely grow cuttings ) - who would own the rights to the new variety?? If you breed from the plant, you have a differnet selection of alleles and so it is not the same plant. The same if the plant produces a sport - pinks are prone to do this. A pbr protected pink may produce a distinct sport in one shoot - you can propagate that sport with impunity. A caveat for plants with genes inserted as a genetic modification - the gene may be patented rather than the plant and there may also be contractual issues with your supplier over and above PBR ones . Many thanks for the update. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter